Reply
Sat 19 Jul, 2003 01:38 pm
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap07-19-115240.asp?t=apnew&vts=71920031218
Here we go again; but only 39?

; Did anyone here get enjoyment from this movie? I was very impressed by its messages and the performances as well ... this article elaborates ...
Totally fascinating and I loved the film. Stockard Channing and the entire cast were excellent. What a life, and a short one at that.
I think he should have been compensated for the use of his life story. It's kind of funky that he wasn't. After all, it was HIS life story, good or bad, right or wrong.
eoe: definitely! That is rather upsetting, huh?
Evidently he sued for $100 mil, and lost.
Soz: I just don't understand that; perhaps the amount is excessive, but usually that simply leads to a compromise ... do you know if this was a jury trial or a bench trial?
Either way, it sounds like bias to me. I don't believe anyone should be able to use a true life story, especially referencing it in the production of a book, play or movie and then not compensate the individual(s). Black American who's gay...hmmm -- any prejudice involved here?
Would this possibly fall under the laws of many states which deny a criminal the right to profit from his criminality?
flyboy804 wrote:Would this possibly fall under the laws of many states which deny a criminal the right to profit from his criminality?
uh oh, the voice of reason! It certainly could ...
I fear I am behind the times. The Supreme Court has struck down the "Son of Sam" laws (the unofficial name for these laws) of both New York and California as unconstitutional on first ammendment grounds.
well, it seemed like a good idea at the time; but, now I can't imagine the reason...could it be because he had crappy representation, is black and gay...hmmmmmmmmm? :wink:
He was a scam artist and he stayed in trouble with the law. Looks like he just couldn't get out of his own way. I remember seeing him on 60 Minutes or Dateline or one of those news programs several years ago. He was an ass, doing and saying stupid things just for show. He had the opportunity to benefit from that appearance but he squandered it.
You're likely right as he was portrayed on screen as perverse but also a sympathetic character. He was likely a sociopath but his talent in duping some pretty smart people is astonishing. The Stockard Channing character was the crux of the play and the movie (she portrayed her in both). I don't know what happened to her in their relationship after the ending of the film. That would be a telling story.